Mini Mini Reviews #2

“The Omega Man” (1971) – More or less, it’s a lame version of “The Last Man on Earth,” that exchanges all of its subtlety and tension for over the top goofiness and really poor effects. Grade: D+

“Moonstruck” (1987) – A very heartwarming romance with one of the more honest performances out of Nicholas Cage, while also proving how multi-talented Cher can be. Grade: B

“Cleopatra” (1963) – This should be the dictionary definition of extravagant and box office failure. The history behind “Cleopatra” is far more interesting than the movie itself, though that might be due to the four-and-a-half hour runtime. I wouldn’t have nearly as much problems with the film if it wasn’t the longest film I’ve ever watched and nothing about the film justifies that runtime. Grade: C

“The Death of Stalin” (2017) – A nice palette cleanser after “Cleopatra,” “The Death of Stalin” feels like the Russian equivalent of “Dr. Strangelove” focusing on incompetent idiots having to deal with problems they were never prepared for. Great dialogue, wonderful performances, and a hilarious pace that never lets up. Grade: B+

“Cornered” (1945) – A man travels to Argentina to find the Nazi who killed his wife, and the film utlimately becomes more about stopping that same Nazi from controlling some crime syndicate or something. It started out great and Dick Powell’s performance really captures the grief and pain he’s going through, but somewhere along the way the film loses its focus. Grade: C+

“Scoob!” (2020) – One of the best children’s movies in the last year, “Scoob!” is colorful, funny, loyal to the source material, and most importantly, fun. It takes Scooby-Doo to a more personal level than he’s ever been while still having a great sense of humor about it all. The opening is touching and the ensuing sequence where they remake one of the classic Scooby-Doo moments is great to see. Even though it’s aimed for little kids, there’s enough here for older fans of Scooby to enjoy this movie. Grade: B

“A Ghost Story” (2017) – Is it cliche to call this film haunting? One benefit I’ll give “A Ghost Story” is that, in the case of other thought-provoking indie films like “Under the Skin” I’d normally be bored out of my mind with so little happening in the film and even less pontificating. And while there are some annoyingly slow or nonsensical moments in “A Ghost Story,” the film really does drive home how distant, cold and worrisome death can be. It certainly has some bizarre artistic choices, but those choices do lead to a point that makes the whole piece worth it. Grade: C+

“Candyman” (1992) – This is a supernatural horror film way ahead of its time. Much like “The Twilight Zone,” “Candyman” uses myths and legends to talk about issues that plague society, and especially societies that often get unheard, especially in the 1990s. Wonderful writing, spectacular performances, some impressive cinematography, and horrifying effects, this one shows why the myth of Candyman has stuck with us for so long. Grade: A-

“I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang” (1932) – For 1932, this film is as politically charged and controversial as Hollywood could be, taking a long, hard look at the dehumanization of the criminal justice system and how it defines those who have been in it. This film is brutally honest and horrifying for its time, but surprisingly thrilling, especially due to Paul Muni’s gripping performance as a man caught up in the mechanisms of a corrupt and petty form of justice, and how that changes him from the inside out. Grade: A+

“Horse Feathers” (1932) – Not the best Marx brothers comedy, but this one is certainly worth watching if only for the climatic football game where the brothers go all out. At times, it feels like a cartoon in how energetic and absurd they get. Grade: C+

“Gattaca” (1997) – A thought-provoking piece of speculative fiction, “Gattaca” explores every aspect of how humanity would change if we went all in on the genetic manipulation, both the good and the bad, especially how that would make the best of us possible but also create a new form of descrimination against those who didn’t have their genetics changed. It’s an effective triumphant story, sold by Ethan Hawke’s emotional performance, with some eye-opening world building. Grade: B+

“The Yearling” (1946) – This is your standard, run-of-the-mill boy and his dog story, except that it’s a baby deer instead of a dog, complete with a coming-of-age story about the boy fighting for his home and growing up a little faster than expected. The best part is certainly the boy’s father, played by Gregory Peck, who has the same likable charm we’ve come to admire from him in works like “To Kill A Mockingbird” and “Roman Holiday.” Grade: C

“Murder by Contract” (1958) – This is a barebones film noir about a hitman with a strict code that he adheres to, with a strange sense of superiority that gives him a rather cool edge. Aside from a memorable soundtrack and the coolness of the main character, this is your basic film noir. Grade: C+

“Da 5 Bloods” (2020) – Describing “Da 5 Bloods” as a strange mix of “Do the Right Thing,” “Apocalypse Now” and “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” would not do this film justice. Much like all of Spike Lee’s best work, this film captures a great pain that is timeless in its relevance, in this case the mistreatment of black soldiers during the Vietnam War and how situations have not improved much since then. Most of this is sold through the tortured performance of Delroy Lindo, a man teetering on the edge of clarity and insanity, and a brilliant fusion of Fred C. Dobbs and Colonel Kurtz. It is eye-opening, impactful, thrilling, visually stunning, and it is Spike Lee in his element. Grade: A

“Underworld U.S.A.” (1961) – If “Mildred Pierce” is the perfect Mother’s Day film noir, then “Underworld U.S.A.” is the perfect Father’s Day noir, about how far one man will go to avenge his old man. What really hits home is that, while we never get to see the father alive, we see just how much he impacts our protagonist (Cliff Robertson) in his day-to-day life, making this a tribute to how much a father influences his son’s life in invisible ways. Grade: B

“San Francisco” (1936) – Aside from the spectacularly executed earthquake special effects and model use that followed that scene, nothing too extraordinary about “San Francisco.” Other than wanting to slap Clark Cable for being the most insensitive, smug, selfish prick on the planet, and that apparently D.W. Griffith co-directed it, which would probably explain why the film wants us to sympathize with the most unlikable man on the planet. Grade: C

“Tokyo Godfathers” (2003) – “San Francisco” could have learned a thing or two from this movie about taking characters that should be unlikable or despised and giving them dimensions, trauma and redemption. Everything about this movie flows together so perfectly, especially the broken homeless family healing each other through actions even they didn’t know they had in themselves. Grade: A-

“A Matter of Life and Death” (1946) – The best way I can describe “A Matter of Life and Death” is as a reverse “Wizard of Oz,” where real life is filled with bright technicolor and new opportunities to explore and love, and the fantastical is shot in black-and-white and is shown to be a dreary, monotonous bureaucracy. If you enjoy “Wizard of Oz,” you should definitely give this one a try. Grade: A-

“The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner” (1962) – Certainly the most angsty, rebellious British film I’ve ever seen. It shows a darker, more honest look at the impoverished side of Britain and the hardships that those people carry. Grade: C+

“I was a Male War Bride” (1949) – One of the better examples of a love-hate relationship I’ve seen in Hollywood movies, where both partners (played by Cary Grant and Ann Sheridan) constantly try to one-up each other in the most showoff-y way possible, which gets on the other’s nerves, while always going out of their way to help the other whenever possible. It is odd that the titular plot of the film, about Cary Grant having to pose as a war bride, only comes in the last 40 minutes, but this light screwball comedy still works throughout. Grade: B

“Chariots of Fire” (1981) – On the complete opposite end of the spectrum from “Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner,” this film is all about proper Englishmen and devotion to that prim and elegant lifestyle above all else. Still, the most interesting thing about “Chariots of Fire” was the soundtrack, mostly because the electronic 80s music feels so strange when used for a film set in the 1920s. Grade: B-

“Earth vs. the Flying Saucers” (1956) – What pushes this film above other 1950s sci-fi movies is a few things. Ray Harryhausen’s effects work on the flying saucers breathes new life into something we often take for granted now, the final battle on Washington D.C. still holds up surprisingly well, especially when combined with other effects that aren’t stop motion, and the romance between the two leads (Hugh Marlowe and Joan Taylor) is charming and never overbearing, making the two leads some of the more likable protagonists in any 1950s sci-fi movie. Grade: B

“The 7th Voyage of Sinbad” (1958) – Going in, I thought the only thing of note was going to be Ray Harryhausen’s stop-motion effects, but there are a few other stand out things about this epic fantasy. Namely, Bernard Herrmann’s score is as good as any of his music for Hitchcock’s films, atmospheric and adds a new sense of scope to the many monsters Sinbad must defeat. Still, the Harryhausen’s effects steal the show and take on a life of their own, especially with so many different monsters here, such as a two-headed bird, multiple cyclops, a swash-buckling skeleton, and a fire-breathing dragon. Grade: B

“OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies” (2006) – To be a truly great parody, you have to love what you’re parodying. “Cairo, Nest of Spies” might be the best parody since “Airplane!” because it doesn’t just nail the aesthetic, camera techniques, green screen effects and fight choreography of the James Bond movies, but the views and attitudes of the time period too, putting Bond’s gross misogynistic and insensitive views on full display to show just how out of date they are, without having the dimwitted, backwards spy who doesn’t know any better come across as unlikable. This spy parody blows all of the Austin Powers movies out of the water. Grade: A

Movie Review - "Onward" (2020)

You can always rely on Pixar to deliver an imaginative, colorful and beautiful picture that has enough there to entertain both kids and adults. Their latest film, "Onward" is no exception.

While the film isn’t groundbreaking in the slightest or even close to one of Pixar’s best films, that doesn’t stop "Onward" from giving us one of the more creative metaphorical worlds it has ever presented. It delivers on everything it sets out to do – good laughs, excellent morals, a wonderful ending and a sense of wonder about the world that only a Studio Ghibli film can match.

In the case of "Onward," the film is about a mystical world filled with every sort of mythical creature, goblins, manticores, dragons, centaurs, pixies and so many others, as well as the ability to use magic. However, magic doesn’t come easy in this world and can only be used properly by skilled sorcerers. Non-sorcerers decided to make life easier for themselves by creating something that is much easier to use – technology. As their society started using more tech like cars and phones instead of spells and staffs, the citizens got used to the ease of it until magic became a legend, a product of a long forgotten era.

From there, the film takes place in what can only be described as modern times, where the mythical creatures act no different than we do, if only a little disinterested and feeling like something is missing. We see a family of elves who exemplify this, mostly a pair of brothers, the socially awkward Ian (Tom Holland), and his older brother Barley (Chris Pratt) who is obsessed with the mythical past and treats everything like a Dungeons and Dragons adventure. On Ian’s 16 birthday though, their mother (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) gives him a present from his deceased father – a wizard’s staff with a spell that will bring the father back to life for 24 hours. But when the spell doesn’t work exactly how it’s supposed to, Ian and Barley have to go on a quest throughout their world to fix it if they want to have a chance to see their father one last time.

What makes "Onward" work so well is its world building, making magic and spells that are so unique but also so hilarious in the hands of novices like Ian and Barley. A lot of the magic is based off of emotions or mental states, like focus and honesty, leading to a lot of visually comedic situations when Ian can’t stay on task and ends up being the same awkward self that we’ve come to love from Holland’s performance as Peter Parker. On top of that, so many of the magical creatures are handled well, put into modern situations that I would have never expected. Some of the best ones include pixies being a tough biker gang who threatens anyone who makes fun of their size, except that it takes about a dozen pixies to operate one regular sized motorcycle. Another great one is the manticore (voiced by Octavia Spencer), who is supposed to hand out dangerous quests to adventurers, and has turned her tavern into a Chuck-E-Cheese style restaurant to pay the bills, getting so caught up in the machinations of society that she forgets her true calling.

This terrific world building is balanced by the bond between Ian and Barley. On the surface, Ian appears to be your standard dorky teenager and Barley is your deadbeat brother stuck in the past. But actually, both brothers actively work to make the other a better person…or elf. Barley is always pushing Ian to do things he isn’t prepared for, giving one of the best lines in the movie that no one is ever fully prepared for anything so it’s better to just take the leap and trust in yourself. While Ian keeps Barley grounded in reality, never letting his fantasies get the better of him, but still engrossed in the amazement of magic and exploration.

Together their adventure is one, not just to discover more about their world, but also to learn about the magic they have within themselves and how wondrous they can be on their own. Holland and Pratt both turn in great performances to make it seem like these two really did grow up together, with Barley acting like the father Ian never had and Ian being Barley’s anchor. It all culminates in one of the best endings and morals in any Pixar film, where the journey of these two brothers is finally given a purpose.

Overall, "Onward" isn’t trying to reinvent the wheel or go places Pixar has never gone before, but it still delivers a solid ride that hits every proper emotional note while still creating a massive and entertaining world. It is exactly what you’d expect from Pixar, giving us something that everyone can enjoy, while still offering one of the better endings they’ve ever done. And for Pixar to still have so much to offer after all this time is magical in its own right.


Final Grade: B+

Movie Review - "The Invisible Man" (2020)

One thing I learned early on while writing film reviews is to embrace your own ethnic and gender backgrounds and what makes you you. If you’re a mostly conservative reviewer and you watch a film with a mostly liberal agenda, that gives you a unique perspective when it comes to the views of that film. Personally, I give a film like "The Accountant" more praise than others because it is one of the few films to have an autistic main character and addresses what it really feels like to have autism, something I have to deal with every day.

I bring this because I had a similar reaction to "The Invisible Man" as I did with "Get Out" – delving into fears and bigotry that I can’t comprehend. As a white male, there’s a hidden subtext in both of those films that makes the terror that the main characters feel like something many people have gone through, but is something I’ve never experienced. In the case of "Get Out," it was about the fear of racism unhinged by modern society and what privileged individuals might do to others who look different than them. With "The Invisible Man," it is the fear of women speaking up against men having too much control over the world without any accountability, and dreading that others refuse to see or acknowledge what that could mean, like that worry is invisible to everyone else.

These fears that reflect real life worries make both movies more powerful in their subtlety, message and endearing performances. Even if I don’t fully understand how devastating these fears can be to some, both films make it clear that they’re as real as you and me and need to be addressed.

But of course, the other common point between "Get Out" and "The Invisible Man" is that, even if you remove all of that, you still have a gripping, atmospheric thriller that never lets up.

"The Invisible Man" is a modern remake of a classic Universal horror film, though the original 1933 version is far more comedy than horror. This version dives headfirst into what an invisible person could really do in today’s society, detailing the life of Cecilia Kass (Elizabeth Moss) as she leaves her abusive and controlling husband Adrian. She’s been planning this for some time, but Adrian has always been so manipulative that she fears what he would do to her if she left. But while she’s hiding at a friend-of-a-friend’s house, Cecilia learns that Adrian not only killed himself but left her five million dollars as he was one of the world leaders in optic technology, on the condition that she not commit any crimes and prove that she’s mentally stable. Just when everything seems great though, a bunch of strange things start happening around her friend’s house, including a missing knife and finding Adrian’s phone in the attic. The more Cecilia digs into it, the more she believes that Adrian isn’t dead and is stalking her without being seen.

The story is a fractured and misleading tale about two broken people. The main focus is on Cecilia, her years of abuse and manipulation haunting her like a ghost, making her constantly look over her shoulder, worrying that she’ll never be able to get away from being controlled. When she starts to believe Adrian is stalking her, all of those fears come to life and her paranoia causes her to start ruining her own life, making you even wonder if there even is an invisible stalker and she’s making all of this up.

But Adrian’s side of the story cannot be overlooked, after all the movie is named after him. One thing is made clear about Adrian from the beginning – control. He doesn’t feel safe or content with life unless he is in control of every little detail, including what his wife wears, eats, and thinks. And if he can’t have that control, then he’ll take any action necessary to regain control, especially if that means manipulating control to show that things would be better if he was in charge. This is shown in many ways, like Adrian stealing Cecilia’s laptop and writing a nasty email to her sister through her email account, or making it look like Cecilia hit her friend’s daughter. Everything is a mind game to Adrian and he wants to show that he is the most dominant and in control.

Together, this creates a wonderfully tense dynamic that plays on Cecilia’s fears and Adrian’s quest for control that never lets up. Even moments of a long shot down an empty hallway are terrifying, using negative space better than any movie in recent memory. And it’s all because of the basic carnal desires of these two leads – one that wants love and another that wants freedom, but both ultimately desire peace of mind in their own ways.


Final Grade: A

Movie Review - "Fantasy Island" (2020)

Never heard of the TV series "Fantasy Island"? It’s fine. I’m pretty sure this films’ producers haven’t heard of it either.

While I’ve never watched an episode of the series, I do find the premise interesting – a magical island that brings your biggest dream to life, regardless of what that may entail or how impossible that might be. For a television show, that has a lot of potential, each episode bringing in a new guest with a different fantasy. Much like "Star Trek," the possibility for episodes is endless and each episode could be a different genre, some going for more dramatic and introspective, while others could be funny or action-packed or thrilling.

The new "Fantasy Island" movie though decides to take none of those routes, remove the wonder and awe of an island that can grant your wishes and make an uninspired and forgettable horror movie that has no business being a horror film. Not only is a movie the wrong format for this premise, because there are about six different plotlines that have no business being connected, but then it doubles down on the stupidity by trying to go deeper in an "Inception"-style plot where everything is a fantasy-within-a-fantasy, without ever making any of these characters seem like anything more than walking stereotypes.

It was honestly painful watching "Fantasy Island," mostly because the rules of the island don’t make any sense. From the beginning, they make it clear that everyone only gets one fantasy and that everything they imagine isn’t real – if they imagine a certain person, like a long lost lover. Except the movie contradicts itself almost immediately. While one guest wants a second chance to fall in love again, and gets a not-real copy of her former boyfriend, another guest wants revenge on a childhood bully and they fly in the actual bully for her to literally torture. Why did they need to kidnap the bully? Couldn’t the island make a fake bully like it made a fake boyfriend or a fake dead father for another guest?

But it doesn’t stop there – at least three different guests get multiple wishes, even some getting another wish while their former wish is still playing out. The film can’t make up its mind on what these characters truly want and it is infuriating, especially since the rules get thrown out the window. Why should any of this matter to these people? If there really are no rules, then if anything goes bad, they could use another wish to undo everything.

Even then, it’s not clear how the island knows what to wish for, especially for one character whose wish keeps changing. At first, he makes it clear that he wants to serve in an active military situation and be a soldier, but then it quickly changes to fighting alongside his dead father, then changes again to saving his father, only for all of that to be completely pointless when we find his real fantasy was "to be a hero." Why go through that whole ordeal when the island could have just given him superpowers and fight crime? It is unnecessarily convoluted and never gives us a chance to like this guy when his motivation is all over the place.

That’s the problem with "Fantasy Island" in a nutshell – way too many ideas, and not enough talent to execute them all. It feels like they tried to cram an entire television season’s worth of ideas into a 90-minute movie. Nothing comes organically, everything feels rushed and the characters have no defining traits or development. It all feels hollow at best, and insulting at worst. Ultimately, a massive waste of time.


Final Grade: F

Movie Review - "Sonic the Hedgehog" (2020)

The "Sonic the Hedgehog" movie is one of the rarest and most bizarre experiments in the history of Hollywood. While it wasn’t the first film to receive universal backlash after its first trailer dropped, one of the biggest examples of that being the all-female "Ghostbusters" remake, I’ve never seen a studio so quick to apologize for such a bad representation of a beloved character and actively work to remake the movie so that the character actually looks like how they’re supposed to…until "Sonic" came along. We never got that kind of apology with "Ghostbusters" or the 1998 American "Godzilla." I can only guess that Sega decided to redo all of the effects shots of Sonic because it would be the final nail in the coffin to the decline of Sonic’s reputation, ruining him forever.

Regardless, if you haven’t seen what Sonic was originally supposed to look like in this movie, you’re doing yourself a favor. I can’t imagine this movie Sonic looking like a beady-eyed reject from "Cats" with teeth and weird hands and feet. He looked like a gremlin that’ll steal all of your possessions before you even see him, which would have ruined the movie. If Sonic’s design had been unchanged, this movie would be terrible – a main character that is unpleasant to look at and would only get worse as he ran around. If we hadn’t complained about how terrible the design was, this movie would be irredeemable.

With the redesign though, "Sonic the Hedgehog" is a serviceable kids movie. Sonic and James Marsden’s characters are likable and have good chemistry together, Ben Schwartz perfectly captures the manic energy of Sonic as well as his love of life, the running effect for Sonic and slow motion is put to good use, the comedy hits many of the right notes it needs to, and it has a good moral about the importance of making connections with people. I do want to stress that this is still a kids movie though, since the characterization is shallow and expected, much in the same vein as an episode of "Power Rangers" or "Kim Possible." Plus, Sonic does the "Fortnite" floss dance. Twice.

But if there’s any reason to see this movie, besides seeing the marked improvement over the old effects, is because of Jim Carrey, playing the evil Dr. Robotnik. Carrey steals the show in every scene he’s in, capturing the same crazy insanity that made him famous in the first place in movies like "Ace Ventura" and "The Mask." Imagine if all of Carrey’s characters from his movies in the 1990s merged together and decided to be a super villain. A character so full of himself and his greatness that he delights in proving how everyone else is dumber than him, despite throwing temper tantrums like a five-year old. Little moments like him taking command from a general by talking over him any time he speaks up to the way he treats his minion like one his malfunctioning machines that he doesn’t know how to fix are the things I’ll remember the most about this movie.

Overall, "Sonic the Hedgehog" knows exactly what it wants to be – a cartoonish, kid-friendly adventure that captures the crazy energy of a blue alien that can run really fast being chased by Jim Carrey. And while this wouldn’t have been successful in the slightest if the effects weren’t updated, the film does everything adequately, if rather simply. For a kids film adapting a video game character, that’s all we can ever ask for.
 
Final Grade: B-

Movie Review - "Birds of Prey" (2020)

If you asked me which sidekicks to DC characters deserved their own movies, my first pick would not be Harley Quinn. Robin, Lois Lane, the Teen Titans, even Mera from "Aquaman" have potential for poignant, worthwhile superhero movies. Yet we live in a world where the Joker’s obsessed girlfriend got her own movie in the DC cinematic universe before Batman, the Flash or Green Lantern got their own movies. And make no mistake, despite the title and advertisements billing this movie as an ensemble cast with several main characters, "Birds of Prey" focuses on Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn as much as the Deadpool franchise focuses on Deadpool, with lots of fourth wall breaking and self-important, hyper-active characters.

If "Suicide Squad" was DC’s rip off of "Guardians of the Galaxy," then "Birds of Prey" is their rip off of "Deadpool" – R-rated superhero violence with loads of in-jokes and our hero bouncing back and forth between good and evil. But I’ll give "Birds of Prey" this much, at least it’s not horrendously unlikable like "Suicide Squad" since this one does try to have some personality and moral dilemmas.

Set some time after the events of "Suicide Squad," Harley Quinn (Robbie) has gotten tired of purportedly years of abuse, neglect and both mental and physical scars from the Joker and breaks up with him in the most ludicrously over the top way, which also puts a massive target on her back. This results in open season being declared on Harley, where she eventually ends up in the hands of the mob boss Black Mask (Ewan McGregor). Harley is able to weasel her way out of his clutches by doing a job for him that leads into a much bigger plot about a priceless gem that holds the key to a massive fortune, which very quickly involves a police detective (Rosie Perez), one of Black Mask’s employees who considers turning on him (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), a mysterious crossbow killer going after mob bosses (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and a teenage thief who gets her hands on the diamond (Ella Jay Basco).

The strength of "Birds of Prey" lies in its supporting cast, especially the titular team of heroes. Perez plays a tired detective who has had enough of the corruption of the police department and just wants to make a difference in the world. Smollett-Bell plays a torn and confused woman who has seen how tough the world can be and just wants to live rather than survive, but realizes the conflict that creates for the rest of the world. Winstead plays a little girl in an adult’s body who only seeks vengeance, and then can’t figure out what to do with herself once she’s achieved that goal. All of them are charming and complex in their own ways, angry at the world but unsure how to make a big difference without ever coming across as brooding or angsty. Even Ewan McGregor is rather charming in his insanity and maniacal ego-trip, always ready to party but always read to attack without any regard or remorse. Every one of these characters is written and performed with the perfect amount of gravitas and dignity.

Where the film makes or breaks it though is with Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn, who is in every scene. Even scenes where she’s not on screen, she’s providing narration about her thoughts on each character or writing on the screen about her nickname for them and why they probably hate her. Whether you love or hate this film will depend entirely on how much you enjoy Robbie’s kinetic and over-the-top performance and if you feel she differentiates herself enough from Ryan Reynold’s Deadpool in terms of zany, almost cartoon-esque antics. Personally, I felt Robbie’s performance was at odds with the serious-minded stories of the other female leads and didn’t contribute to any of them beyond bringing them together. As her own character, her redemption is serviceable but Robbie really dials everything up to 11. It’s like if William Shatner tried to be Batman in one of Christopher Nolan’s movies. There are times where the movie would have been better off without her, and other times where her frenetic energy is hilarious, especially when she’s being hunted by all of Gotham.

Overall though, "Birds of Prey" is a serviceable R-rated superhero film. The supporting cast is really given a chance to shine and the writing can sometimes be clever, but it does use many of the same fourth-wall breaking jokes and nods as "Deadpool" and it doesn’t help that Harley Quinn is as cartoony as Ryan Reynolds. Yet despite the many branching storylines, there is a solid connecting theme of turning anger and confusion into a weapon that brings them all together. "Birds of Prey" is far from the worst the DC cinematic universe has to offer, but it’s a sign that they’re still trying to copy Marvel’s success.
 
Final Grade: C+